First, once again, about "provider-independent addresses", AKA "connectivity-
independent addresses".
This is pretty much like asking for a street address that stays the same even
when you move.
[..]
Look, if you want some sort of identifier for machines, one that stays the
same even when a machine moves somewhere else, the IPv4 architecture simply
does not provide it. Frankly, it wasn't even guessed at as a requirement,
back when the Internet had 18 total nets in it.
To be honest I think you are not really mirroring the full story here.
IPv6 adopted the IPv4 architecture lock, stock, and barrel, changing only the
length of the address. This is touted as its great strength - in fact, it's
its greatest weakness, and we see an example here.
Which is why we have this WG....
I think that is one of the questions we have to ask. It might not be the answer, but we do need to ask the question.*Don't* come ask for "location-indepedent street addresses".
Oh, I think it's reasonably easy to understand why people want identifiersWell, what I am looking for is a) Any idea of why people are doing this. We are again back to the problem that we should first understand what we are trying to solve before we start posting solutions.
for their machines that stay the same even if they change providers. They
want to make it easy (or at least easier) to change providers, and prevent
lock-in.
The only possible solution *in the architecture as it stands* is to use DNSThere is AFAIK no limit on this group to use the architecure as it stands. And I don't believe DNS is the only solution.
names, if people need a location-independent host identifier.